Nondualism is not a form of Monism

[Arising_uk]

Or at least this is what I've been told.

So what makes this 'nondualism' not a form of Monism as categorised in Philosophy?

[Veritas Aequitas]

nah, non-dualism at the meta-level is still one side of a duality, i.e.

• duality versus non-dualism.

even if non-dualism is claimed as monism, it is still caught in duality i.e.

• duality versus monism

Poster like DAM do not realize they are conflating the meta-level with the ordinary level to imagine non-dual is an absolutely absolute.

What is needed is to toggle between the two levels, i.e. duality and non-duality to apply what is optimal to the circumstances.

It is not realistic [stupid] to insist the "I" do not exists even when the "I" is standing on a rail track and facing an oncoming train!
In the other extreme, it is irrational to insist the "I" exists even after physical death in a heaven 'up there' or 'somewhere' and where for some the "I" is surrounded by virgins.

There are conditions where "I" exists and where "I" do not exists is to be applied to gain optimality.

[Atla]

nah, non-dualism at the meta-level is still one side of a duality, i.e.

• duality versus non-dualism.

Nondualism is a lack of all fundamental separation. You still don't realize that your duality contains separation on two meta-levels and your monism on one meta level (and I would ignore what DAM says).

[Veritas Aequitas]

nah, non-dualism at the meta-level is still one side of a duality, i.e.

• duality versus non-dualism.

Nondualism is a lack of all fundamental separation. You still don't realize that your duality contains separation on two meta-levels and your monism on one meta level (and I would ignore what DAM says).

Not very sure of your points.

I understand the experience of a nondualist state as an altered state of consciousness but note that is all happening in the mind of the individual who think s/he is blended with the universe.

But the reality of an observer observing the person experiencing that state of oneness is the physical person is still dualistic with the external environment and the universe.

Note the case of the scientist experimenting with DMT [Spirit Molecule] and his volunteers.
After the injection or intake of the DMT, the volunteers will detached from the real world and enter into a world of their own and blend with the cosmos and universe.
But to the scientist these volunteers are merely normal humans with their eyes close making various movements and sounds. To the scientist and any other observers the volunteers still exist within ordinary reality and duality.

Thus that "lack of all fundamental separation" is only within the minds of the volunteer and not a reality.

A person who suffers from temporal epilepsy could also experience the same "lack of all fundamental separation" and they are cured of it with the relevant drug prescription.

Thus this supposedly dualism is relative to the person experience it, but that person is still in a state of duality in ordinary reality, i.e. the person which is independent of the external world.

Thus there is no big fuss with the idea of nondualism when view in its appropriate perspective.

It is obvious a person who have had experiences of nondualism, actualizes it and understand its pro and cons will have an additional mental tool to deal with more problems in life. What is most realistic as I had argued is how well can an individual utilized one's experience of non-dualism and dualism to deal with his/her mental world and the external world.

[Atla]

nah, non-dualism at the meta-level is still one side of a duality, i.e.

• duality versus non-dualism.

Nondualism is a lack of all fundamental separation. You still don't realize that your duality contains separation on two meta-levels and your monism on one meta level (and I would ignore what DAM says).

Not very sure of your points.

I understand the experience of a nondualist state as an altered state of consciousness but note that is all happening in the mind of the individual who think s/he is blended with the universe.

But the reality of an observer observing the person experiencing that state of oneness is the physical person is still dualistic with the external environment and the universe.

Note the case of the scientist experimenting with DMT [Spirit Molecule] and his volunteers.
After the injection or intake of the DMT, the volunteers will detached from the real world and enter into a world of their own and blend with the cosmos and universe.
But to the scientist these volunteers are merely normal humans with their eyes close making various movements and sounds. To the scientist and any other observers the volunteers still exist within ordinary reality and duality.

Thus that "lack of all fundamental separation" is only within the minds of the volunteer and not a reality.

A person who suffers from temporal epilepsy could also experience the same "lack of all fundamental separation" and they are cured of it with the relevant drug prescription.

Thus this supposedly dualism is relative to the person experience it, but that person is still in a state of duality in ordinary reality, i.e. the person which is independent of the external world.

Thus there is no big fuss with the idea of nondualism when view in its appropriate perspective.

It is obvious a person who have had experiences of nondualism, actualizes it and understand its pro and cons will have an additional mental tool to deal with more problems in life. What is most realistic as I had argued is how well can an individual utilized one's experience of non-dualism and dualism to deal with his/her mental world and the external world.

Why can't you see that the distinction of "internal environment vs external environment" is entirely made up?

[Skepdick]

If Monism is a journey, non-dualism is the destination.

The God-Man dualism emerges in Genesis 1:27, so technically speaking God-believers are dualistic thinkers.
This is a performative contradiction for Monism.

In its most paradoxical fashion, to become a true Monist, you actually have to give up the God-Man distinction.

You claim your free will. You see God in your own image. You are God. Non-dualism complete.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why can't you see that the distinction of "internal environment vs external environment" is entirely made up?

Why not, note I am a philosophical anti-realist who believe the internal and external are interdependent with reality.
Elsewhere I have stated humans are the co-creator of reality-as-it-is.

The internal and external environment are co-created and they are not false per se but rather we have recognized them appropriately to optimize one's well being.

[Atla]

Why not, note I am a philosophical anti-realist who believe the internal and external are interdependent with reality.
Elsewhere I have stated humans are the co-creator of reality-as-it-is.

Yes you didn't make sense then and you don't make sense now.
There is no internal vs external
And they especially don't have an "interdependence" with reality
And humans aren't co-creators

[Dontaskme]

Or at least this is what I've been told.

So what makes this 'nondualism' not a form of Monism as categorised in Philosophy?

There is no such thing as non-dualism.

Non-duality is not an ism.

There is no such thing as non-duality because non-duality is not a thing.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why not, note I am a philosophical anti-realist who believe the internal and external are interdependent with reality.
Elsewhere I have stated humans are the co-creator of reality-as-it-is.

Yes you didn't make sense then and you don't make sense now.
There is no internal vs external

In one perspective, there is the mental world and the external world. Obviously the world of one's dream is not the external world. Only a schizo would likely believe they are exactly the same.

And they especially don't have an "interdependence" with reality
And humans aren't co-creators

You are just brushing if off without reference to the philosophical anti-realists [e.g. Kant] who had argued it is so and they have provided sound arguments for it.
Kant argued there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself but rather things are always things-via-humanselves.

Show me a justified argument where whatever exists as-it-is is independent of any human interaction?

[Atla]

In one perspective, there is the mental world and the external world. Obviously the world of one's dream is not the external world. Only a schizo would likely believe they are exactly the same.

Yes that's a perspective, as in: a made-up but useful distinction.
But in truth, there is no fundamental separation between the dreams in your head and the rest of the world.

You are just brushing if off without reference to the philosophical anti-realists [e.g. Kant] who had argued it is so and they have provided sound arguments for it.
Kant argued there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself but rather things are always things-via-humanselves.

Show me a justified argument where whatever exists as-it-is is independent of any human interaction?

Kant went in the right direction but not far enough. After all the advances of 20th century science we now know that is just makes no sense to give humans a special role in existence like that.

The world is neither independent from humans, nor magically dependent on them.

[surreptitious57]

I am a philosophical anti realist who believe the internal and external are interdependent with reality
Elsewhere I have stated humans are the co creator of reality as it is

The internal and external are abstract divisions of the human mind
But reality has no such divisions because it is everything that exists

Reality as it is had existed long before humans ever did and so they cannot have been responsible for its creation
Also as eternal non existence is not possible then reality has always existed so cannot have been created anyway

[Veritas Aequitas]

In one perspective, there is the mental world and the external world. Obviously the world of one's dream is not the external world. Only a schizo would likely believe they are exactly the same.

Yes that's a perspective, as in: a made-up but useful distinction.
But in truth, there is no fundamental separation between the dreams in your head and the rest of the world.

Whatever the truth, it cannot be a standalone truth, it has to be qualified.
In the same of dream and external world the common denominator are the sense-data being processed in the same brain of a human being.

That is the point we need to qualify the perspective and context of the point we are making.
Note an iceberg appear to a separate thing from the ocean it is floating on in one perspective, but in another, the are not separated by merely made of the same H20 molecules in different compactness.
It is the same with a piece of charcoal and diamond in a tub of carbon powder, there is difference in one perspective but no separation of one view them in term of carbon element.

You are just brushing if off without reference to the philosophical anti-realists [e.g. Kant] who had argued it is so and they have provided sound arguments for it.
Kant argued there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself but rather things are always things-via-humanselves.

Show me a justified argument where whatever exists as-it-is is independent of any human interaction?

Kant went in the right direction but not far enough. After all the advances of 20th century science we now know that is just makes no sense to give humans a special role in existence like that.

The world is neither independent from humans, nor magically dependent on them.

What?
Don't you know, the more advance Science progressed from Newton's independent world, the more it give the observer [humans] a role in it.

• Note the Observers effect.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
  In physics, the observer effect is the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon. wiki
  
  Note the 'Wave Function Collapse'
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
  In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is said to occur when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world; this is called an "observation". -wki

That is more like moving towards the philosophical anti-realist position like those of Kant no thing-in-itself that can exists alone without human interactions.
Kant note the progress to philosophers up to his time has failed to established knowledge from the external world, i.e. conform to external Objects;

• Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
  But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.
  Critique of Pure Reason

So he made the following proposals and justified it;

• We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
  Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. [B xvii]
  
  A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
  If Intuition must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
  but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.
  Critique of Pure Reason

The last point is where Kant claimed whatever the knowledge and reality, it has to conform to the human mind.

See this is one great slip exposed from you, and the more you justify the more you will learn of your own mistakes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am a philosophical anti realist who believe the internal and external are interdependent with reality
Elsewhere I have stated humans are the co creator of reality as it is

The internal and external are abstract divisions of the human mind
But reality has no such divisions because it is everything that exists

Reality as it is had existed long before humans ever did and so they cannot have been responsible for its creation
Also as eternal non existence is not possible then reality has always existed so cannot have been created anyway

However whatever is expressed above cannot be realized as real without a human mind. You have no other way but make the above based on human reasoning, inferences, etc.

Note Wittgenstein's
'Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent'

You can make the above propositions but,
you [as human] are only reasoning and venturing into something humans cannot speak of - the thing-in-itself, thus must remain silent regardless of what your reason and mind tell you.

[Eodnhoj7]

Or at least this is what I've been told.

So what makes this 'nondualism' not a form of Monism as categorised in Philosophy?

3 is the first number...

Monism contains dualism under the "reality and opinion" dichotomy of parmenides.

Dualism is monist statement considering the atomists (a foundation of dualism) observe point particles with all point particles being the same point particle.

One and Many = Triadism as both dualism and non dualism.

Thus Monism does is non dualism but is not necessarily limited to non dualism.